Date   

Re: Revmaster 2100

Jeff Sellars
 

UL 3300, does anyone have performance numbers with the 3300? In a Q200? Or would that be a Q -3300?
Heck, how about a Q 360?


Re: Flight Report - .003 mph prevails

Mike Dwyer
 

Great flight report.  Do some video of the beautiful scenery there!

On Oct 24, 2014 8:03 PM, "jnmarstall jnmarstall@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

AWESOME day to FLY. High thin cirrus, unlimited visibility (very rare
for here. Could see the mountains of GA, SC, TN, VA from Western NC).
Also winds light and variable and as smooth as silk. "How smooth was
it?" It was so smooth that I could actually trim the Q and it would
maintain heading and altitude for several seconds.

Decided to fly down to Greenwood, SC to see Richard Kaczmarek's
skunkworks. Unfortunately he was working at his real job today so I
only got to chat with him a few moments on the phone. Nothing else
special happened except for the incredible view and joy of flying the Q,
until I was returning and within 30 sm of Asheville, with approach
control. At that point they asked me to give them "max speed" for
spacing with other inbounds. I didn't give it all, but did push it up
to 2750 and began a 300fpm descent. At 12 miles APP turned me over to
tower. At this point I am clipping along at 185mph TAS.
Tower immediately calls out a Cessna CJ that is turning base in front of
me. I acknowledge seeing it and he then says, "N625JM you are
overtaking the CJ by 20 knots, can you pull it back?" In my best,
former fighter pilot voice, I said, "Roger. Those jets are always
slowing me down."

See, that .003mph speed enhancement I got with the rudder cables fairing
paid off. I'm now lurking in the blue awaiting the next F-18 that comes
to AVL. (Had two here yesterday. They chose not to hang around - the
word is out)

Keep building guys, adventures are awaiting.

Jerry


Re: Flight Report - .003 mph prevails

Paul Buckley
 

Like it!!
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 1:03 AM
Subject: [Q-LIST] Flight Report - .003 mph prevails

 

AWESOME day to FLY. High thin cirrus, unlimited visibility (very rare
for here. Could see the mountains of GA, SC, TN, VA from Western NC).
Also winds light and variable and as smooth as silk. "How smooth was
it?" It was so smooth that I could actually trim the Q and it would
maintain heading and altitude for several seconds.

Decided to fly down to Greenwood, SC to see Richard Kaczmarek's
skunkworks. Unfortunately he was working at his real job today so I
only got to chat with him a few moments on the phone. Nothing else
special happened except for the incredible view and joy of flying the Q,
until I was returning and within 30 sm of Asheville, with approach
control. At that point they asked me to give them "max speed" for
spacing with other inbounds. I didn't give it all, but did push it up
to 2750 and began a 300fpm descent. At 12 miles APP turned me over to
tower. At this point I am clipping along at 185mph TAS.
Tower immediately calls out a Cessna CJ that is turning base in front of
me. I acknowledge seeing it and he then says, "N625JM you are
overtaking the CJ by 20 knots, can you pull it back?" In my best,
former fighter pilot voice, I said, "Roger. Those jets are always
slowing me down."

See, that .003mph speed enhancement I got with the rudder cables fairing
paid off. I'm now lurking in the blue awaiting the next F-18 that comes
to AVL. (Had two here yesterday. They chose not to hang around - the
word is out)

Keep building guys, adventures are awaiting.

Jerry

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 4031/8446 - Release Date: 10/24/14


Flight Report - .003 mph prevails

jnmarstall <jnmarstall@...>
 

AWESOME day to FLY. High thin cirrus, unlimited visibility (very rare for here. Could see the mountains of GA, SC, TN, VA from Western NC). Also winds light and variable and as smooth as silk. "How smooth was it?" It was so smooth that I could actually trim the Q and it would maintain heading and altitude for several seconds.

Decided to fly down to Greenwood, SC to see Richard Kaczmarek's skunkworks. Unfortunately he was working at his real job today so I only got to chat with him a few moments on the phone. Nothing else special happened except for the incredible view and joy of flying the Q, until I was returning and within 30 sm of Asheville, with approach control. At that point they asked me to give them "max speed" for spacing with other inbounds. I didn't give it all, but did push it up to 2750 and began a 300fpm descent. At 12 miles APP turned me over to tower. At this point I am clipping along at 185mph TAS.
Tower immediately calls out a Cessna CJ that is turning base in front of me. I acknowledge seeing it and he then says, "N625JM you are overtaking the CJ by 20 knots, can you pull it back?" In my best, former fighter pilot voice, I said, "Roger. Those jets are always slowing me down."

See, that .003mph speed enhancement I got with the rudder cables fairing paid off. I'm now lurking in the blue awaiting the next F-18 that comes to AVL. (Had two here yesterday. They chose not to hang around - the word is out)

Keep building guys, adventures are awaiting.

Jerry


Re: Revmaster 2100

Mike Dwyer
 

Both true.  But the LS1 design was done wirh an 0-200A as the engine.  The GU was designed with the Revmaster.

Mike Dwyer

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Vimeo Videos: http://goo.gl/bsaLsG
My Website: http://q200.eu.pn/

On Oct 24, 2014 5:07 PM, "afarr@... [Q-LIST]" <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

Hi. I thought that they changed from GU to LS1 due to contamination issues not because of lack of strength. The LS1 requires the carbon spar only because it is too thin to be strong enough without it - unlike the fat GU;) Anyway that's what I thought - could be wrong?



That's twice now that I read a 0-200A can be used with a GU canard.  I do not think this is true.  If I'm wrong I'd like to see the stress analysis study that shows such a heavy engine can be used.  The Quickie Aircraft Corporation came out with the upgrade to the Q2 which was the LS1 canard with the carbon spar and lots of fuselage stiffeners, mass counter balances...  Just plopping a Cont 0-200A on your Q2 is asking to die in my opinion.   

Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP


Re: Revmaster 2100

Allan Farr
 

Hi. I thought that they changed from GU to LS1 due to contamination issues not because of lack of strength. The LS1 requires the carbon spar only because it is too thin to be strong enough without it - unlike the fat GU;) Anyway that's what I thought - could be wrong?



That's twice now that I read a 0-200A can be used with a GU canard.  I do not think this is true.  If I'm wrong I'd like to see the stress analysis study that shows such a heavy engine can be used.  The Quickie Aircraft Corporation came out with the upgrade to the Q2 which was the LS1 canard with the carbon spar and lots of fuselage stiffeners, mass counter balances...  Just plopping a Cont 0-200A on your Q2 is asking to die in my opinion.   
Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP


Re: Revmaster 2100

Bruce Crain
 


Re: Revmaster 2100

mylittlemgb@...
 

The LS1 came about to correct the issues with the GU in flight the only reason we have found for the extra bracing was due to the was the LS1 was built but do have one of the last GU's I think because it does have the same bracing as the LS1 and not like my older GU. Hey Dave I looked at the place in FL but at a cost of $1500 I don't think it would be worth it since the engine by VW standards is at TBO. Cost wise best route for me would be send everything to Revmaster and let Joe rebuild the engine and convert it to electronic ignition like the new ones he offers. Cost wise I would be looking at around $5000 per Joe. I still really want to see what the Q could do with a 107 hp at less weight then the VW. I would love to do the 130 hp.


Re: Revmaster 2100

Paul Buckley
 


Well, it has always been my understanding that the LS1 was developed to give the canard more elevator authority in order to handle the extra weight of the 0-200.
The GU is undoubtedly able to handle the landing loads, 'tho, as Mike points out, the  LS1 also comes with fuselage stiffeners.
The mass balance weights are there because of the higher speed potential.
 
My two penn'th, or even two cents, worth ..........
 
Paul Buckley
Cheshire, England
 
Embryo Waddelow TriQ-200
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: Revmaster 2100

 

That's twice now that I read a 0-200A can be used with a GU canard.  I do not think this is true.  If I'm wrong I'd like to see the stress analysis study that shows such a heavy engine can be used.  The Quickie Aircraft Corporation came out with the upgrade to the Q2 which was the LS1 canard with the carbon spar and lots of fuselage stiffeners, mass counter balances...  Just plopping a Cont 0-200A on your Q2 is asking to die in my opinion.   

Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, mylittlemgb@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

This is just my 2 cents worth if it helps. On the side of Revmaster I do have the 2100D and no complaints I am on my second one with a Q2 having almost 2500 TT. The first engine went 1100 hours trouble free just followed recommended maintenance. The second is now at 1200 hrs and now has a mag issue and has me scratching my head what to do since the mag needs overhauled and Bendix no longer makes parts for or supports it. I can't gripe since it is the mag from the first engine. I keep thinking of the 0-200 conversion but after putting together the cost I can move to the UL Power 107hp and not have to worry about replacing the cowl or modification to the firewall. Plus if I would have to do work on the backside of the engine it would not have to be removed like the VW or Continental. Plus it does weight less then the Revmaster and is fuel injected and electronic ignition. Empty weight on my Q is 498 lbs. with the VW. My bird is also a GU canard and I have no interest in changing it. 0-200 can be used on the GU without problem but why add weight if you don't need to. I seen a comment about the 0-235 on a Q and it has been done but due to weight and size it doesn't yield any better performance then the 0-200 nor does the Corvair conversion. Bottom line for me I just want to go as fast as Sam does with his little racer.


Richard Kaczmarek

Fast Little Airplanes 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3485 / Virus Database: 4031/8440 - Release Date: 10/23/14


Re: Revmaster 2100

Dave Dugas
 

Richard
I just had my Bendix dual mag on my Revmaster overhauled and updated last year by Executive Air in Florida. Nice people.
Dave Dugas

Sent from Windows Mail

From: pilothicks1@... [Q-LIST]
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎October‎ ‎23‎, ‎2014 ‎4‎:‎28‎ ‎PM
To: pilothicks1@... [Q-LIST]

 

Just food for thought here. QAC advertised the Q as being 490 empty weight 1000 lbs gross we all know those numbers to be way off as the average empty weight of a Q2 is 690 empty no mater of power plant. The wonderful pilots of this list helped us find this number a couple years ago. so as I see it most every Q2 of any type is over gross with more then one person on board. So in saying that you have over loaded even the LS1. The counter balances are in place to stop flutter I do have them on both my GU birds and would always recommend it to EVERY airplane flying you may never fly fast enough for flutter but why take the chance. In flight the LS1 REQUIRES the sparrow strainers due to the design of the airfoil. The GU requires the VG's once again due to the Modified airfoil. So in short there was a large  margin of safety built into what these wings can hold. Yes the LS1 tube spar is stronger but not all have that tube spar exp. Bruce Crain. The issue would be taxi and landing not flight as far as loading I would be happy to put my GU up to the test if so needed. Now that does help push the side of using a more costly engine. By the time you convert to the 0-200 aand build a new canard with the Carbon spars you could buy a brand new UL Power 130 hp engine add counter balances and save money. The 130 hp UL weighs in at the same weight as my old 2100D.  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong it does happen to me a lot.



Re: Revmaster 2100

mylittlemgb@...
 

Just food for thought here. QAC advertised the Q as being 490 empty weight 1000 lbs gross we all know those numbers to be way off as the average empty weight of a Q2 is 690 empty no mater of power plant. The wonderful pilots of this list helped us find this number a couple years ago. so as I see it most every Q2 of any type is over gross with more then one person on board. So in saying that you have over loaded even the LS1. The counter balances are in place to stop flutter I do have them on both my GU birds and would always recommend it to EVERY airplane flying you may never fly fast enough for flutter but why take the chance. In flight the LS1 REQUIRES the sparrow strainers due to the design of the airfoil. The GU requires the VG's once again due to the Modified airfoil. So in short there was a large  margin of safety built into what these wings can hold. Yes the LS1 tube spar is stronger but not all have that tube spar exp. Bruce Crain. The issue would be taxi and landing not flight as far as loading I would be happy to put my GU up to the test if so needed. Now that does help push the side of using a more costly engine. By the time you convert to the 0-200 aand build a new canard with the Carbon spars you could buy a brand new UL Power 130 hp engine add counter balances and save money. The 130 hp UL weighs in at the same weight as my old 2100D.  Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong it does happen to me a lot.


Re: Revmaster 2100

mylittlemgb@...
 

You are correct it was not done with the 0-200 that I have info on it was done with the C-85 and C-90. I believe I still have the info or it is part of the stuff I shipped to Dan. But no less the weights are very close at about 175 lbs no acc. or oil. Now days with a 0-200 use electronic ignition, light weight starter and alt. and the engine is much over the VW install.


Re: Revmaster 2100

Mike Dwyer
 

That's twice now that I read a 0-200A can be used with a GU canard.  I do not think this is true.  If I'm wrong I'd like to see the stress analysis study that shows such a heavy engine can be used.  The Quickie Aircraft Corporation came out with the upgrade to the Q2 which was the LS1 canard with the carbon spar and lots of fuselage stiffeners, mass counter balances...  Just plopping a Cont 0-200A on your Q2 is asking to die in my opinion.   

Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Q200 Website: http://goo.gl/V8IrJF

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, mylittlemgb@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

This is just my 2 cents worth if it helps. On the side of Revmaster I do have the 2100D and no complaints I am on my second one with a Q2 having almost 2500 TT. The first engine went 1100 hours trouble free just followed recommended maintenance. The second is now at 1200 hrs and now has a mag issue and has me scratching my head what to do since the mag needs overhauled and Bendix no longer makes parts for or supports it. I can't gripe since it is the mag from the first engine. I keep thinking of the 0-200 conversion but after putting together the cost I can move to the UL Power 107hp and not have to worry about replacing the cowl or modification to the firewall. Plus if I would have to do work on the backside of the engine it would not have to be removed like the VW or Continental. Plus it does weight less then the Revmaster and is fuel injected and electronic ignition. Empty weight on my Q is 498 lbs. with the VW. My bird is also a GU canard and I have no interest in changing it. 0-200 can be used on the GU without problem but why add weight if you don't need to. I seen a comment about the 0-235 on a Q and it has been done but due to weight and size it doesn't yield any better performance then the 0-200 nor does the Corvair conversion. Bottom line for me I just want to go as fast as Sam does with his little racer.


Richard Kaczmarek

Fast Little Airplanes 



Re: Revmaster 2100

mylittlemgb@...
 

That was my original thinking and I have always loved talking to Joe at Revmaster. He has always been very helpful and I do think he builds a great engine but I do want to move forward with technology and speed. The Christine Aero engine is coming back out producing 100 +hp and I am very involved with it and even thought of going that way as well but I have watched UP for the last 10 years even became a dealer for them so my thinking became time to use one and see what it can do on these fast and efficient planes. I want the fuel injection so I can eliminate a couple of engine controls and be more efficient. The new Christine engine will have that but it is still heavier then UL and still has to be removed for some service intervals. I am still flipping the quarter at this time. I won't pull the trigger till first of the year when my planes are here in South Carolina from Ohio with 9 more to move this project has been timely and very costly.


Richard


Re: Revmaster 2100

Patrick Panzera
 

How about simply upgrading to the Revmaster 2331cc R2300?
It's rated at an honest 85hp for takeoff and 80 continuous. Not as powerful as the UL, but half the price- and parts are available just about anywhere. 

It has dual electronic ignition with individual coils at each of the 8 spark plugs. 
It would be a bolt and go situation- no changes except for the prop- you'll need a little more pitch to absorb the additional power. 

A few years ago we complied all the Revmaster articles we ever printed in CONTACT! Magazine into a special issue, and have an electronic version that's available for free, in addition to hard copy that can be ordered online as well. it has a nice write-up on the R2300 engine:

http://issuu.com/contact.magazine/docs/issue_104.5b.jpg

Pat

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:20 AM, mylittlemgb@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:
 

This is just my 2 cents worth if it helps. On the side of Revmaster I do have the 2100D and no complaints I am on my second one with a Q2 having almost 2500 TT. The first engine went 1100 hours trouble free just followed recommended maintenance. The second is now at 1200 hrs and now has a mag issue and has me scratching my head what to do since the mag needs overhauled and Bendix no longer makes parts for or supports it. I can't gripe since it is the mag from the first engine. I keep thinking of the 0-200 conversion but after putting together the cost I can move to the UL Power 107hp and not have to worry about replacing the cowl or modification to the firewall. Plus if I would have to do work on the backside of the engine it would not have to be removed like the VW or Continental. Plus it does weight less then the Revmaster and is fuel injected and electronic ignition. Empty weight on my Q is 498 lbs. with the VW. My bird is also a GU canard and I have no interest in changing it. 0-200 can be used on the GU without problem but why add weight if you don't need to. I seen a comment about the 0-235 on a Q and it has been done but due to weight and size it doesn't yield any better performance then the 0-200 nor does the Corvair conversion. Bottom line for me I just want to go as fast as Sam does with his little racer.


Richard Kaczmarek

Fast Little Airplanes 



Re: Revmaster 2100

mylittlemgb@...
 

This is just my 2 cents worth if it helps. On the side of Revmaster I do have the 2100D and no complaints I am on my second one with a Q2 having almost 2500 TT. The first engine went 1100 hours trouble free just followed recommended maintenance. The second is now at 1200 hrs and now has a mag issue and has me scratching my head what to do since the mag needs overhauled and Bendix no longer makes parts for or supports it. I can't gripe since it is the mag from the first engine. I keep thinking of the 0-200 conversion but after putting together the cost I can move to the UL Power 107hp and not have to worry about replacing the cowl or modification to the firewall. Plus if I would have to do work on the backside of the engine it would not have to be removed like the VW or Continental. Plus it does weight less then the Revmaster and is fuel injected and electronic ignition. Empty weight on my Q is 498 lbs. with the VW. My bird is also a GU canard and I have no interest in changing it. 0-200 can be used on the GU without problem but why add weight if you don't need to. I seen a comment about the 0-235 on a Q and it has been done but due to weight and size it doesn't yield any better performance then the 0-200 nor does the Corvair conversion. Bottom line for me I just want to go as fast as Sam does with his little racer.


Richard Kaczmarek

Fast Little Airplanes 


Re: Revmaster 2100

Jay Scheevel
 

Hi Mike,

I have done considerable "reading between the lines" on the Jab J3300 over the last 5 years or so. Head cooling is a common problem. The original heads are made with a softer alloy that reaches yield within commonly achieved CHT range. I think this alloy was chosen so that the heads could be CNC milled from a single block of metal. I have decided to go with the Rotec after market liquid cooled heads in order to avoid that issue. Also the Rotec liquid cooled heads are cast from a higher temp alloy, so even if they are run dry, they should not yield at high temp (this is not my intention, but would give me time to get on the ground if the cooling fails).

Pat is correct about the cylinder barrels. They are steel.

The Bing carb, ships standard with the engine and has automatic mixture correction, but this often causes high temp issues at different power settings, so they (Jabiru factory) recommend changing jet size to accomodate optimal temps. This usually results in much higher fuel burn in order to err on the cool side. Most folks find that to be a imperfect solution. There is a way to install a manual mixture control using a hackman valve. Your friend should look that up on the Jabiru Yahoo group. Many are using the hackman with good results. I have chosen to avoid that problem by using the Rotec throttle body injector (TBI). We shall see how that works, but they usually get good reviews.

My engine dry weight, with exhaust installed is 185 pounds. This is considerably lighter than the O-200.

Cheers,
Jay Scheevel, Tri-Q, still building


Re: Revmaster 2100

Bob Farnam
 


Re O200 conversion for a Q2, Mark Summers made a very successful conversion of his Revmaster Q2 to an O200 powered Q2/O200. He did not change the canard, but did add the Ohio State Voyager style vg's. He also added, as I recall, a weight to the tailspring to balance the extra weight of the O200. The airplane is very successful and was regularly used to commute from Lake Tahoe to Livermore. It has now been retired and replaced by his new Legacy. 
Bob
 
Quickie Q200 N200QK
Sent from my netbook


Conversion of Q2 to Q2/O200

Bob Farnam
 


Re O200 conversion for a Q2, Mark Summers made a very successful conversion of his Revmaster Q2 to an O200 powered Q2/O200. He did not change the canard, but did add the Ohio State Voyager style vg's. He also added, as I recall, a weight to the tailspring to balance the extra weight of the O200. The airplane is very successful and was regularly used to commute from Lake Tahoe to Livermore. It has now been retired and replaced by his new Legacy. 
Bob
 
Quickie Q200 N200QK
Sent from my netbook


Re: Flight Report

Allan Farr
 

"fowl" - sounds tasty;)


---In Q-LIST@..., <q2pilot@...> wrote :

I have an old Electroair Electronic ignition to the lower plugs and mag on the top plugs.  It appears that you can fowl both!

Curious if Sam did that also.

Mike Dwyer Q200 N3QP

My YouTube channel: http://goo.gl/ddljYZ
My Vimeo Videos: http://goo.gl/bsaLsG
My Website: http://q200.eu.pn/

13261 - 13280 of 55798